André Brie, Column for “Disput - the Journal for
the Members of the Left Party.PDS“, February 2006
Pure market radicalism
Hardly any EU law planned has led to such a broad discussion as the
service directive, also called Bolkestein directive after its “originator”.
The globalisation critical movement “attac” and trade unions, left
parties and social movements, numerous other organisations and
scientists for months have been warning against the “liberalisation” and
privatisation of the service sector in Europe. Last week, the plenary of
the European parliament decided on what is maybe the most consequential
European act of law.
I am realist enough not to expect anything good after the experiences up
to now. Already last November, the directive had passed the competent
interior market and consumer protection committee. This was made
possible last but not least by the European social democrats, who
abstained or agreed, even though - for instance in Germany - they had
been very critical of the document. The vote lasted almost six hours;
the voting list alone encompassed the hitherto unknown number of 193
pages. At the end of the procedure, most of the interpreter cabins were
no longer manned. In contrast to those who will be concerned in the
future by the Bolkestein paper, the employees of the European Parliament
enjoy high social protection.
Precisely this is at stake. While the original draft of the
directive was changed on numerous questions, and there certainly were a
few positive restrictions of the area of application (by the way, the
Left fraction in the European Parliament made a significant contribution
to that effect), Bolkestein opens the European market for services to a
dumping race to the bottom, as far as wages, social standards, consumer
and environmental law, quality, certainly also guarantee law and legal
security for clients in general are concerned. Certainly, the country of
origin principle heavily attacked publicly no longer appears as a
concept. The corresponding article 16 is now titled in a more innocuous
way: “Free traffic in services”. The substance, however, is practically
the same. Only for the protection of public order and security, popular
health and the environment may the states insist on the keeping of
national rules. Otherwise, there hold the laws of the country from where
the service provider comes. Practically, this means: who offers the
lowest wage, social, and other standards might soon have the nose ahead
in the competitive battle.
In the collection “The critical EU book”, published these days by Attac
Germany, it says that Europe has committed a “systemic break” by way of
the Bolkestein directive. “Unlike the appearance conveyed by the public
debates, not the European social model represents the point of emphasis
of European integration, but economic policy instruments such as the
free transfer of goods or capital”, the over 20 authors, women and men,
from different countries state. “The result is sad: A Europe getting
ever richer can - allegedly - no longer afford redistribution, tax
justice, and social security, struggle against poverty, public
investments, and environmental protection.” Not social security that had
previously been defined as a goal but competitiveness is today the
reference value in the European Union.
When countries commit to categories such as competitiveness that come
from business economics and are valid in fact only for firms, this shows,
whose interests they represent. The declaration of the EU Commission
that Bolkestein would create around 600,000 jobs seems rather cynical
before that background. Because it is not very credible. Previous
liberalisations have resulted in million-fold dismissals. And even if it
were this way: The official number of unemployed would just sink from
18.6 to 18 million. And this, when opening a sector that already today
comprises 70% of the European economy.
There is at this point no more strategic, no more far-reaching project
of neoliberal market radicalism in the EU than the Bolkestein directive.
Resistance is necessary - by trade unions and other social movements,
artisans, consumers (women and men), local communities. That protest may
be successful is proven by the actions of the European port workers: The
project of the Commission for liberalising the port services failed in
January.
Translated by Carla Krüger, February 21, 2006
